Curonix LLC v. Laura Tyler Perryman

Curonix LLC v. Laura Tyler Perryman

C.A. No. 2019-1003-BWD, Court of Chancery of Delaware (January 30, 2026). Before David, V.C. Unpublished opinion. 2026 WL 252838.

Relevant Facts

• In 2010, Laura Tyler Perryman founded Stimwave Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware corporation that developed and commercialized neurostimulators for chronic pain treatment. Perryman also founded subsidiary entities, including Micron Devices, LLC (a Delaware LLC) and StimQ Medical LLC (a Bahamian entity), and caused Stimwave to transfer patents and intellectual property to Micron, which then licensed the IP back.

• In 2018, Perryman executed a Contribution Agreement transferring Micron's ownership interests in StimQ to Stimwave, and a Security Exchange Agreement increasing Stimwave's ownership stake in StimQ. She also executed patent and asset assignments (the "Micron Assignment Agreements") to consolidate the corporate structure and filed a Certificate of Cancellation for Micron.

• In October 2019, Stimwave received a DOJ civil investigation demand. An internal investigation revealed that Perryman improperly used company assets and ordered staff to forge invoice references. The board placed Perryman on leave; she then resigned as CEO.

• After her resignation, Perryman advanced a false narrative that Micron never transferred its IP to Stimwave, filed a Certificate of Correction purporting to revive Micron, and caused Micron to assign the IP to a different entity. Stimwave initiated this action in December 2019.

• In related proceedings, a Micron bankruptcy resulted in a Settlement Approval Order confirming the validity of the Contribution Agreement and Micron Assignment Agreements. In June 2022, Stimwave itself filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets (including this litigation) to Curonix LLC under a court-approved Asset Purchase Agreement.

• In March 2024, Perryman was convicted of health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and wire fraud, and was sentenced to 72 months in federal prison. Curonix substituted itself as plaintiff and filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging six counts. Default judgment was entered against the entity defendants. Perryman, acting pro se from prison, moved to dismiss the remaining counts.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Chancery had personal jurisdiction over Perryman, who raised the defense for the first time in a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint after six years of litigation.

• Whether service of the Second Amended Complaint on Perryman in federal prison was sufficient under Court of Chancery rules.

• Whether the Second Amended Complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the IP assignment agreements and for malicious prosecution.

• Whether the claims in the Second Amended Complaint were time-barred given that the underlying events occurred between 2017 and 2019.

Positions of the Parties

• Perryman moved to dismiss on multiple grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)), insufficient process and service (Rules 12(b)(4) and (5)), failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), and that the claims were time-barred. She also argued the complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity.

• Curonix (plaintiff) opposed the motion, arguing Perryman waived the personal jurisdiction defense through six years of litigation conduct including filing counterclaims, that service was proper by mail to Perryman's last known address (federal prison), that the Second Amended Complaint stated valid claims for declaratory relief and malicious prosecution, and that all claims related back to the original complaint filed in 2019.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

Vice Chancellor David denied Perryman's motion to dismiss in its entirety.

On personal jurisdiction, the court held that Perryman waived this defense by failing to raise it in her answer to the First Amended Complaint, filing her own counterclaims in the Court of Chancery seeking declarations about the disputed agreements, and participating in the litigation for six years. Through such conduct, Curonix built up a reasonable expectation that Perryman would defend the suit in Delaware.

On service of process, the court found that service was proper under Court of Chancery Rule 5(b)(2)(D), which permits service by mailing to the person's last-known address (here, federal prison). The original complaint had been properly served in 2019 via the Register in Chancery.

On failure to state a claim, the court found the Second Amended Complaint alleged sufficient facts to support Curonix's claims for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the IP assignment agreements and for malicious prosecution. Perryman's arguments about fraud particularity under Rule 9(b) were meritless because the complaint did not allege fraud claims.

On the statute of limitations, the court held the claims related back to the original complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 15(c) because they arose out of the same conduct and transactions. The malicious prosecution claim, based on conduct from December 2020 to December 2022, was also timely because the motion to amend was filed in December 2022, within the three-year limitations period.